Fla. Won't Extend Recount Deadline

By Will Lester Associated Press Writer Monday, Nov. 13, 2000; 9:25 a.m. EST

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. BB Al Gore's advisers denounced as "arbitrary and unreasonable" a decision by Florida's Republican secretary of state to maintain a Tuesday deadline for certifying manual recounts in Democratic-dominated counties.

Emerging from an eight-minute meeting with Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, Warren Christopher said the country election boards or Gore himself will appeal the decision.

He suggested that Harris' ruling was politically motivated. Noting that she campaigned for Gore's rival, George W. Bush, and is a political supporter of Bush's brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Christopher said. "Her statement has to be taken into that context."

The development came as both sides went to federal court over Bush's petition for a court order shutting down the hand recounts, which have narrowed the Texas governor's lead in all-important Florida.

Three of the manual recounts requested in four Florida counties probably cannot be completed by the Tuesday deadline.

"We regard the action of the secretary of state to be abitrary and unreasonable," Christopher said in a hurried-up news conference with Daley. "It seeks to nullify and frustrate the hand count."

Gore's huge team of operatives and lawyers geared up for a public relations battle. Democrats said they would dispatch Gore surrogates across the country to allege that Harris' actions are evidence that Jeb Bush is using his influence as Florida's governor to help his brother.

Harris campaigned for the Texas governor in New Hampshire and is an ally of the Florida governor.

B) Copyright 2000 The Associated Press

Fla. Won't Extend Recount Deadline

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), November 13, 2000

Answers

>> "We regard the action of the secretary of state to be abitrary and unreasonable," Christopher said <<

My! What diplomatic words to describe a naked power grab.

As long as no further recount is certified, Bush is guaranteed to win by something like 300 votes. He apparently has decided that this bird in the hand is worth throwing away any pretense of "restoring decency to the White House".

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 13, 2000.

Brian,

Quite frankly, that is a load of crap.

How many times and in how many ways should the Republicans let the Democrats recount the vote? Until the Gore camp gets the desired outcome?

Bush has won this election. The Democrats are now trying to steal it.

Other posters are laughing at the prospect of civil unrest and the buying of more ammo that is being discussed over on EZ board, but this situation could EASILY result in violence. In fact, I would say that rioting is almost guaranteed in Florida if Bush is declared the winner. I would also say that there is at least a 50/50 chance of rioting in Florida if Gore is declared the winner.

We are a nation divided. We are very close to this thing erupting, and if it does, it could very well get out of control.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 13, 2000.

Brian:

Up until now, you have been a stickler for the absolute letter of the law. You tell RC that it might not seem fair to you or him, but since that's what the law says, that's what we do.

Now, this is a fine position so long as you stick with it. And the decision of whether or not to allow delay is *legally* Harris' decision to make. With delicious irony, Harris decided to FOLLOW the law specifying the manual recount deadline, rather than ignore this law. Suddenly you abandon the letter of BOTH of these laws and rave about a naked power grab, and the loss of legitimacy.

Surely you don't mean to imply that instigating a third vote count (after losing the first two), by hand, only in districts most heavily Democratic, by partisan interpreters who change the rules to suit their preferences, is somehow *NOT* a naked partisan power-grab? Do you sincerely claim to be fooled into believing this tactic is nonpartisan? Or do you support the letter of the law ONLY when doing so leads to the outcome you favor?

I suspect the Florida law about these recounts has not been tested before. It may occur even to a Florida judge that winners do not demand recounts, and that losers will focus their recount demands where they are likely to gain (if the law permits). A state law that decrees that, in essence, the winning candidate must risk his position by requesting "retaliatory" recounts before he can know if it's necessary, may not stand up to legal examination.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 13, 2000.

"Bush has won this election. The Democrats are now trying to steal it."

Why don't you get your facts straight. No one has yet won this election.

The votes that could not be counted because of machine error need to be counted.>/i> Bush has the right to demand manual recounts and signed a law stating such recounts were superior to machine count.

Quit distorting the facts.

-- Quit whining (face@facts.com), November 13, 2000.

Italics off.

-- (clean@up.crew), November 13, 2000.

>> And the decision of whether or not to allow delay is *legally* Harris' decision to make. With delicious irony, Harris decided to FOLLOW the law specifying the manual recount deadline, rather than ignore this law. <<

You cannot have this both ways, Flint. In one sentence you say that the decision "is *legally* Harris' to make" and in the next you say that to have decided otherwise would be to "ignore the law".

If Harris "*legally*" has discretion, then legally she could have exercised her discretion to allow the manual count to be finished and certified.

If allowing the manual count to be be finished and certified would also require her "to ignore the law", then *legally* she has no discretion and it isn't "Harris' decision to make".

Which is it?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 13, 2000.

The problem is that the original recount was mandated by Florida state law. There was a sizable variance between the original vote and the recount. Gore was found to have 1400 more votes than he had the first time a vote was called. It is rare to have such an enormous variance in an election.

This is a very serious issue which needs to be examined carefully. A manual recount for the entire state of Florida, or at least those counties with the greatest variance, is the only way to be certain that the votes have been counted correctly. If you weren't so blinded by your hatred for Clinton, you would realize that allowing this large a variance is completely unacceptable under even normal circumstances, let alone a presidential election.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), November 13, 2000.

I think there's a lot of people who are HOPING for civil unrest. They probably have some kind of romantic idealization of themselves as "patriots". Some of these people, the militia-types, are the same people that spawned Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), November 13, 2000.

This is a very serious issue which needs to be examined carefully. A manual recount for the entire state of Florida, or at least those counties with the greatest variance, is the only way to be certain that the votes have been counted correctly.

Well put.

Bush's decision to keep acting as if Gore is holding this up, that Bush is the winner and not Gore, is increasing any potential civil unrest. The GOP is attempting to stoke outrage in the public over "unreasonable" delays, but the public has said overwhelmingly they would rather have a just and accurate count than a quick resolution.

Gore won the popular vote and is ahead in the electoral college. Further, the Florida call for Bush on election night wasn't made by the Voter News Service, it was made by Bush's cousin at Fox News, a right-wing orgnaization.

Bush's presumptive posturing as president elect is not only irresponsible and arrogant, it's delusional.

-- --- (GOP@should.concede), November 13, 2000.

I listened to arguments on this one just a while ago. It seems that there are two somewhat conflicting laws in Florida. One states that a hand recount should be granted, and the other states that the hand recount must be completed by a set time/date. What seems to be missing is the START time/date of the recount. This means that a hand recount could be initiated at 4pm and the time limit set at 5pm, full knowing that this could not be accomplished in an hour.

Volusia county filed for the extension in this one, but the Gore camp will join them in that request. It seems to be a county decision to decide upon a hand recount. Some counties decided early, and some thought about it longer. I remember last weekend wondering why one county was waiting until Tuesday to begin the recount.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 13, 2000.

Consumer,

I have not been around the net as Kritter has, but it is my opinion that some of the right, being extremely tired of losing their gun rights, would see an overturn of the preliminary Bush victory as the last straw.

On the other hand, with a vast majority of black voters being on the left, and with Jesse Jackson down in Florida trying to stir even more racial division, an upholding of the preliminary Bush victory could very well result in that side of the political spectrum starting a riot as well.

Remember, it doesn't take the majority of Americans, or even Floridians, to start a riot. It just takes a few tempers flaring beyond the breaking point, or a few people whose tempers are perfectly under control, but whose convictions are strong enough, and a riot can quickly start. Once started, it could escalate and take on a life of its own.

It is my opinion that violence is very likely, regardless of how this election turns out. Whether or not the violence takes off like a forest fire, or is contained, is unknown to me.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 13, 2000.

"He suggested that Harris' ruling was politically motivated" Christopher should be hung. I heard the law stated on the radio. Nothing political about it. Votes need to be in by 5pm one week after the election, in this case Tuesday. It's the democraps making this a partisan event. If the votes are not in by the deadline, then they are ignored. The law couldn't be any more clear on this.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), November 13, 2000.

Thanks J.

I did follow a link on another thread and it is discussing 'protests' in ny and other places. Peeps in ny are afraid of getting beat up.

So in light of it all, looks like a lil 'unrest' is gearing up.

I scratch my head, becuz I simply dgi. I do, but I dont.

While it is certainly not a comparable to y2k, I'd sure hate to be the laughingstock of the World as peeps gather in streets and fight. Stuff like that is NOT supposed to happen here, it happens other places, but not here.

*sigh*

-- sumer (shh@aol.com), November 13, 2000.

*OT*

Maria,

Someday you've got to tell us how you went from being a McGovern/ Shriver volunteer to using words like 'democraps'. Are you a 'Reagan Republican'?

-- flora (***@__._), November 13, 2000.

Tarzan,

I would rather have a "romantic idealization of myself as a patriot", than an unromantic realization of myself as a coward.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 13, 2000.

"Christopher should be hung."

Could you please be a little more specific?

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), November 13, 2000.

hung like a horse?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 13, 2000.

Christopher should be hung.

Yes, and Maria is the perfect vehicle for a lynching. Such a violent statement by someone who rants continually in favor of an AWOL, triple-arrested, white-knuckle drunk doesn't surprise me.

Do Maria or other irrational republicans even care that:

1. The national election was called by Bush's cousion at Fox News on election night, not by the official Voter News service? Let me repeat that -- BUSH'S COUSIN AT FOX NEWS CALLED THE ELECTION FOR BUSH.

2. That Bush promised to "trust the people," but won't let the people accurately count their own votes?

3. That Bush made a stink about federal laws and states rights, then ran wailing to federal court to try to find refuge from state law?

Of course they don't care. They are blinded by their own hypocrisy and, in this case, their own violent rhetoric.

Thanks Maria. Your sickening language perfectly illustrates the Republican mentality.

-- Quit distorting (the@facts.com), November 13, 2000.

I think there's a lot of people who are HOPING for civil unrest. They probably have some kind of romantic idealization of themselves as "patriots".

I would rather have a "romantic idealization of myself as a patriot", than an unromantic realization of myself as a coward.

Regardless of their apparent self-image, anyone who hopes for civil unrest is already a coward, and an idiot as well.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthrougthejunglewithouta.net), November 13, 2000.

There are probably many who'd like to see me hung. And my wife would like to see me hung like a horse. All should be used to disappointment by now.

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), November 13, 2000.

Tarzan,

Hoping for, and being pushed into, are two different things, wouldn't you say?

Or are you saying that the patriots who founded this great country were cowards and idiots?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 13, 2000.

RC: ROFLMAO

-- (shh@aol.com), November 13, 2000.

Lol, too funny. That's exactly what I meant!

Flora, :) I guess I just got smarter. McGovern/Shriver was more emotional reaction to get out of Vietnam (in my younger make-love-not-war hippie days).

Hawk, lighten up! Maybe you need to be hung. But my main point still stands. The law is CLEAR and Harris is following it.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), November 13, 2000.

No, the law ISN'T CLEAR, there are TWO COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS, which is why Gore is going to court. A hurricane will extend the deadline, but apparently not the crucial issue of who will be president. Give me a break.

By the way, Maria, what do you think of George's cousin at Fox News calling Florida for George on election night? It's in the Washington Post today. Do you think having Bush's cousin at a right-wing "news" station call the election was fair to the nation? If so, could you explain how this blatant cronyism jives with the GOP's stated "higher values"?

-- GOP Mafia (gop@mafia.com), November 13, 2000.

Thanks for the laugh of my day, Randy. I've always enjoyed your posts and still do.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 13, 2000.

Hawk, Gore is going to court because he wants to win. The law is clear. The recount "SHALL" be done, not may be done, or is up to the discretion of the loser, or anyone's discretion. SHALL be done within one week of the election. If not, then those votes SHALL NOT count when the college meets. SHALL, a pretty clear word.

"George's cousin at Fox News calling Florida for George on election night" Sounds like a decision made by the networks. Not me or you. I could care less.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), November 13, 2000.

"Sounds like a decision made by the networks. Not me or you. I could care less."

It was a decision made by George Bush's COUSIN. "Not you or me," you're damn right. Not by the American voters, but by Bush's cousin.

And you could care less that Bush's cousin disenfranchised Florida's voters and lied to the ENTIRE NATION!

If this isn't mafia tactics, what is? Jeb calls George and tells him "it's taken care of." Bush's cousin calls the national election at Fox "news."

Yep, Maria is still proud of her candidate's "noble values."

-- GOP Mafia (gop@mafia.com), November 13, 2000.

Hoping for, and being pushed into, are two different things, wouldn't you say?

Absolutely. One is forced into doing something when one has no other recourse. Please, explain to me how the Williams brothers in Northern California had no other choice but to beat that gay couple to death. After all, they call themselves patriots. What about Eric Rudolph and the Army of God? How did it happen that they were forced to blow up not only two abortion clinics but a lesbian bar and an Olympic concert?

Just because you imagine yourself a patriot doesn't make you one.

Or are you saying that the patriots who founded this great country were cowards and idiots?

Nice attempt to put words in my mouth. I didn't actually mention the founders because I thought the distinction between Oklahoma City and Bunker Hill was clear. Unfortunately, I forgot who I was dealing with.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), November 13, 2000.

The Gore campaign launched its first legal action against Florida Monday by joining a lawsuit brought against the state by Volusia County. The county is seeking an extension to the Tuesday afternoon deadline for ballot certification that threatens to derail hand-count efforts in four contested counties. Palm Beach County, the epicenter of the Florida election controversy, also joined the suit.

"The citizens of Florida deserve an accurate and speedy count," Gore communications director Mark Fabiani told Reuters. "The secretary of state, a crony of the Bush brothers, is trying to steal this election away and no one is going to stand for such a naked political act," Fabiani said, referring to Katherine Harris' mandate that counties adhere to Tuesday's 5:30 p.m. EST deadline to certify all election results or risk losing their votes.

In a midafternoon press conference, former Secretary of State Warren Christopher did little to hide his contempt for Harris' decision. "It's hard to understand why, under these circumstances, [Harris] would move to deny thousands and perhaps more votes that Floridians have asked to be considered," Christopher said. "Her plan, I'm afraid, has the look of an effort to produce a particular result in the election rather than to ensure that the voice of all the citizens in the state be heard. It also looks like a move toward partisan politics."

Gore's man in Tallahassee also claimed that under Florida law, the secretary of state has the discretion to postpone the certification deadline. He confirmed that the Gore camp was now a party in the Volusia suit and plead for "all counties who have begun hand counts to continue" them.

---

So you're wrong, Maria. There isn't just ONE interpretation of this law ... obviously.

-- Republicans Sure Are Stupid (they@are.com), November 13, 2000.

Tarzan,

Now we are getting somewhere.

"One is forced into doing something when one has no other recourse".

When the federal government no longer obeys the rule of law, what recourse is left? When the judges in this country circumvent the Constitution with their rulings, what recourse is left? The actions of the federal government and the courts have been pushing this country steadily closer to a revolt for years with their unconstitutional laws and rulings.

Williams brothers... gay couple... patriots... = red herring. Nice try.

Eric Rudolph... abortion clinics... lesbian bar... Olympic concert. I would say that Eric Rudolph felt that there was no longer any other recourse to stop the killings that go on inside of abortion clinics. I do not agree at all with the bombing of a lesbian bar. I am skeptical about the FBI's claim that the Olympic bomb was also attributable to Rudolph. Where is the motive?

"Just because you imagine yourself a patriot doesn't make you one".

Correct. Just because YOU say that someone is a coward and an idiot because they are ready to take up arms to defend the Constitution does not make them cowardly or idiotic.

Why is there a distinction between Oklahoma City and Bunker Hill? Is there a distinction between taxation without representation and burning women and children to death because the ATF got their asses kicked trying to showboat for the TV news cameras? Or is there a distinction in your mind because it is politically correct to label the Davidians a "cult", and then that makes it okay to kill women and children?

Evidently you do not see the correlation between the federal government suspending the rule of law at Waco and at Ruby Ridge, and Timothy McVeigh suspending the rule of law at Oklahoma City. The first two obviously led to the other.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 13, 2000.

Ever seen a Nazi transvestite? Here is the face of the REPUBLICAN DICTATOR who will not allow the votes to be hand counted.

-- (dictator@man.-bitch), November 13, 2000.

When the federal government no longer obeys the rule of law, what recourse is left?

Oh please. The troubles American citizens have now are NOTHING compared to what the founders went through. The founders were taxed without representation. They were forbidden from foreign trade. They were forced to quarter troops in their homes. They were forced to wait for years while the smallest laws were approved, or not approved, by ol' king George. They had their governing bodies dissolved.

And we have... what? Some people are upset because they can't buy cyanide-tipped, armor piercing bullets. Others are mad because their kids must sit next to students of different races (as though they were equal!). Still others are mad because they feel they're being taxed too much.

When the judges in this country circumvent the Constitution with their rulings, what recourse is left?

Citation please. Provide a court case in which a lower court had a ruling that was blatantly against the constitution which was not later struck down by a higher court.

The actions of the federal government and the courts have been pushing this country steadily closer to a revolt for years with their unconstitutional laws and rulings.

More heated rhetoric. Provide a citation.

Williams brothers... gay couple... patriots... = red herring. Nice try.

They were Christian Identity PATRIOTS, Dennis. They are honored as martyrs to the cause of morality in America. They believed what they were doing was striking a blow for the values they believed the founders espoused. Don't dismiss them so quickly- there's not much difference between them and the Army of God.

Eric Rudolph... abortion clinics... lesbian bar... Olympic concert. I would say that Eric Rudolph felt that there was no longer any other recourse to stop the killings that go on inside of abortion clinics.

Oh, I get it now! Killing is wrong, and I'm going to kill and maim people to prove it. This must be some kind of super-patriotic, pro- life line of reasoning that you have to be a special sort of American to understand.

Here's a clue. Eric had PLENTY of other options to end abortion that didn't involve pipebombs and shrapnel.

"I do not agree at all with the bombing of a lesbian bar."

But he's a PATRIOT! A real American (TM) who made a stand against perversion in our great land. Don't you understand that nurse DESERVED to be blinded? That the security guard deserved to die?

"I am skeptical about the FBI's claim that the Olympic bomb was also attributable to Rudolph. Where is the motive?"

This patriot was fighting the NWO. The letter taking credit for the bombing was from "The Army of God" in the same handwriting. The bomb had the same patriot MO.

"Just because YOU say that someone is a coward and an idiot because they are ready to take up arms to defend the Constitution does not make them cowardly or idiotic."

There's nothing wrong with taking up arms to defend the Constitution. In fact, I myself have taken an oath to defend the constitution. My original point, which you have attemtped to obscure, was about those who are hoping to foment civil unresy under the guise of patriotism. Anyone who thinks it's okay to blow up a daycare center in the name of our founders is a coward, an idiot, and the lowest form of life in our nation today.

Why is there a distinction between Oklahoma City and Bunker Hill?

I see your home school didn't focus on American History. Bunker Hill was our first big win face-to-face against the British. Oklahoma City was the cold-blooded murder of hundreds of unarmed citizens. It was the bloodiest act of domestic American terrorism perpetrated so far. Timothy McVeigh, who you seem to equate with men like Patrick Henry didn't even have the courage to face his victims.

Is there a distinction between taxation without representation and burning women and children to death because the ATF got their asses kicked trying to showboat for the TV news cameras?

Hell yes! I can't believe you don't see this. On the other hand, as ignorant as you are on law, history, and economics, I shouldn't be so surprised.

Or is there a distinction in your mind because it is politically correct to label the Davidians a "cult", and then that makes it okay to kill women and children?

There's a distincition because in the revolution, we fought an organizaed, well-trained, well equipped, and possibly at the time, strongest military in the world. At Bunker Hill, we had so few bullets we had to wait 'til we saw the whites of their eyes. In Oklahoma City, your so-called patriot killed unarmed, non-combatant women and children, and ran like a crack head from a drug bust even before the deed was completed.

Evidently you do not see the correlation between the federal government suspending the rule of law at Waco and at Ruby Ridge, and Timothy McVeigh suspending the rule of law at Oklahoma City. The first two obviously led to the other.

You're right, all I see are piles of dead, innocent American citizens. Apparently, in militia math, one wrong multiplied by 168 dead Americans, equals a hero.

Keyboard cowards who sympathize with terrorists are not patriots. Your back is not against the wall no matter how much you might like to think it is. Colonel Prescott would have spit in your face.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), November 13, 2000.

Damn! She sure does look like a Nazi. I can picture her in one of those black caps...

"Heil Hitler!! Zuw must stop cowntink and poot down ze ballots now! Line up against ze fence vere zuw vill be exzacuted!!"

-- (lol@butch.nazi), November 13, 2000.

Tarzan,

Dennis?

Discussion over, old man.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 13, 2000.

Yeah right. I've ALWAYS maintained that you're Dennis. All of a sudden it offends your delicate sensitivities? Oh yeah. THAT will somehow cover up for the fact that you think Timothy McVeigh is a hero.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), November 13, 2000.

Debby Kearney, general counsel for the secretary of state's office, acknowledged that state law gave Harris discretion to extend the deadline but said she refused to do so because the counties had given no adequate reason why they could not comply.

The simple fact that they cannot physically count that many votes in a day doesn't form an adequate reason why they need an extension???

An 80-year-old lady said it best today: "Count all the votes. The one who has the most votes wins."

Why won't Bush let this happen?

Maybe it doesn't matter. He's already lost the PR war in the nation, "big time." The news tonight were uniform in calling his federal lawsuit a frivilous diversion. Bush's shriveled up lawyer was so angry on McNeil/Lehrer he looked like he was going to pop a blood vessel. Jim Lehrer opened his eyes ever so slightly after the interview in disbelief. "And now to Gwen Ifle..." he said. But Lehrer's face -- normally so impassive and stony -- said it all.

Like the rest of the nation, he can't believe the low level the Republicans have sunk to. They've killed themselves, destroyed themselves, by trying to block the vote. It's too obvious, and everyone sees through them.

Even if they win Florida, the Republicans have lost the faith of the country.

-- GOP Mafia (gop@mafia.com), November 14, 2000.

Gore's man in Tallahassee also claimed that under Florida law, the secretary of state has the discretion to postpone the certification deadline.

I would guess the law that Gore's man in Tallahassee is quoting would also give the Secretary of State the discretion to NOT postpone the certification deadline. Both parties are making me ill with their blatant hypocrisy, agreeing to follow the law when it suits them, protesting the law when it does not.

On another subject, J, McVey and Rudolf are murderers and cowards who kill innocent people with bombs and run away like the pussy traitors they are.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 14, 2000.

Uncle Deedah,

What is your assessment of the ATF and FBI agents at Waco, and Ruby Ridge?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 14, 2000.

Wow Ape Man.

I'll bet Dennis woke up with a sore ass and a couple of Tarzan-sized prints back there.

Good job.

-- Access For All (mychoice@notyours.com), November 14, 2000.

Hawk, you're an idiot. No discretion can be made in this case. Only when natural disasters prevent it, can the Sec of State extend the deadline. This is not a natural disaster. Once again the law is clear. Now it seems the democraps want to define the word "deadline" as well as 'is'.

All OBE anyway. The recount has been suspensed because the manual recount has been found to be illegal. The law is pretty clear here also.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), November 14, 2000.

J,

Ruby Ridge and Waco were tragedies of Government power gone berserk, I would agree with Wayne LaPierre's description of them. That does NOT excuse McVey for his acts, nor does the belief that abortion kills babies excuse Rudolf his acts.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 14, 2000.

Uncle Deedah,

I asked for your assessment of ATF and FBI agents at Waco and Ruby Ridge because I was expecting a consistent description out of you. Namely, that the ATF and FBI agents at Waco and Ruby Ridge "were murderers and cowards who killed innocent people with guns and tanks and then lied to cover their butts like the traitorous scum that they are", or words to that effect.

When you burn a church full of women and children to the ground, or when you execute a woman holding her baby in her arms, then you open up a whole Pandora's box of warfare where other innocents are bound to be killed.

As far as Rudolph's belief that abortion kills babies, what do you think it does to the babies, Unc? Inconvenience them for a short while?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 14, 2000.

Maria, we'll see about that. Your friend the Shrub is negotiating with Gore to start recounts in ALL counties. Seems the Republicans make up new "laws" as we go along!

BTW, you're a dumb cunt.

-- heeheehee (you@know.who), November 14, 2000.

When you burn a church full of women and children to the ground, or when you execute a woman holding her baby in her arms, then you open up a whole Pandora's box of warfare where other innocents are bound to be killed.

A deliberate attack against unarmed, non-combatant civilians is not an act of war, it is an act of terrorism.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), November 14, 2000.

old man,

"A deliberate attack against unarmed, non-combatant civilians is not an act of war, it is an act of terrorism".

I agree wholeheartedly; the ATF and FBI are nothing more than government sanctioned terrorists.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 14, 2000.

It's a good thing that Eric Rudolph blew up the lesbian nightclub in Atlanta then, because I understand the place was actually a front for the FBI.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), November 14, 2000.

No comment on the ATF and FBI "attacking unarmed, non-combatant civilians"?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 14, 2000.

Back to the main topic, Florida....

Florida Attorney-General's Advisory Legal Opinion that the manual recount is legal

-- (also@see.this), November 14, 2000.

But I thought you weren't talking to me because I called you Dennis!

Actually, the civilians at Ruby Ridge and Waco were armed and were shooting. This does not excuse the government of course, and despite your pro-terrorism stance, does not excuse Timothy McVeigh.

Why don't you try to explain what the Oklahoma City day care center had to do with Ruby Ridge and Waco.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingignthroughthejunglewithouta.net), November 14, 2000.

All those day care children were armed. Weren't they J?

-- (@ .), November 14, 2000.

Tarzan,

Correct, I wasn't talking to you because you called me Dennis. That was last night, and this is today. Earlier today I decided to call you "old man" from that point on, but I have since decided that to do so would be poor form. Please accept my apology for calling you, "old man". I have chosen to forgive you because I believe that you called me Dennis last night in the heat of the moment. If you truly want to persist in addressing me as Dennis, then I will have nothing to discuss with you. Onward.

Randy Weaver's wife was armed and shooting? While she held her infant daughter in her arms? That is a lie. Even the FBI in all of their treachery never claimed that she was shooting at them when they executed her. Were the 2 and 3 year old children at Waco also armed and shooting?

I am not "pro-terrorism", as you say. I am, however, amazed at your outrage of Timothy McVeigh's tactics, while you show no such outrage at the governments tactics. The killing of innocent women and children begets the killing of innocent women and children. The government cannot kill innocents while destroying their intended target, and then be outraged when the opposition kills innocents while destroying its intended target. Actually, they can be outraged, but it is hypocritical.

The day care center was to the killing of the federal agents stationed in Oklahoma City, as the innocent women and children at Waco and Randy Weaver's wife were to the killing of David Koresh and the other men at Waco and at Ruby Ridge: innocents who were killed collaterally. I do not condone the killing of innocents at Oklahoma City, but I have no sense of outrage or surprise over what happened there. In the context of what happened at Waco and Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City was to be expected.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 14, 2000.

--(@.),

As armed as the kids in Waco were.

Hypocrite.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 14, 2000.

Tarzan,

Vicki Weaver was shot while holding her baby in her house, Randy Weaver's friend was shot in the back while running away, the agent's rationale for shooting him was "I was in fear for my life".

I don't know if I'd be too quick to draw a distinction in this case between the .gov's actions here and OK city. Do you even remember WHY they were assaulting the Weavers?

IMO both OK and Ruby Ridge were acts of terrorism.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 14, 2000.

Just In!! N.Y.Times: Judge Upholds Cutoff of 5pm Today for Recounts!

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0044YY

-- (new@news.now), November 14, 2000.

Unc: >> I would guess the law that Gore's man in Tallahassee is quoting would also give the Secretary of State the discretion to NOT postpone the certification deadline. <<

Correct. The same thought has occurred to me, too. If the SOS is given discretion, then why shouldn't the SOS be able to exercise it any way she sees fit?

Answer: Official discretion must be exercised to advance the public good, and not to obstruct or retard it. No public official is immune from oversight. Each public official must answer for their decisions.

Usually, this "answering" to the public is done at the next election. However, a citizen can ask the courts to get involved, as in this case. As far as I can see, the SOS's decision revolves around a point of law. No one seems to be arguing that the court doesn't have jurisdiction to interpret and clarify that point of law.

Believe me, if the Bush campaign thought that the Florida judge had no jurisdiction, they would be arguing this very strenuously. They have good legal minds at their disposal and can buy the best legal advice.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 14, 2000.

Correct, I wasn't talking to you because you called me Dennis. That was last night, and this is today.

Since I have always maintained that you actually are Dennis Olson in disguise, this would appear to be nothing more than an attempt to dodge my earlier scathing post.

Earlier today I decided to call you "old man" from that point on, but I have since decided that to do so would be poor form. Please accept my apology for calling you, "old man".

There is nothing to apologize for. I do not consider "old man" to be an insult. I am currently undergoing treatment for cancer and would consider it a great piece of luck and a privelaget to actually become an old man.

I have chosen to forgive you because I believe that you called me Dennis last night in the heat of the moment. If you truly want to persist in addressing me as Dennis, then I will have nothing to discuss with you. Onward.

Once again, I have always maintained, and continue to maintain, that you are Dennis Olson in disguise. While you have expressed upset at this before, this is the first time that you have chosen to virtually stomp out of the room like a grounded teenager. I must say the timing is rather interesting.

Randy Weaver's wife was armed and shooting?

I did not say that. However, Randy Weaver was armed and shooting, unlike, say, the people at Olympic Park in Atlanta.

While she held her infant daughter in her arms? That is a lie.

Since no one brought this up but you, this is also a red herring.

I am not "pro-terrorism", as you say.

Oh really? Attempting to equate Oklahoma City to Bunker Hill is a strange thing to do if you're not "pro-terrorism". Calling Oklahoma City an "act of war" is another strange thing to do.

I am, however, amazed at your outrage of Timothy McVeigh's tactics, while you show no such outrage at the governments tactics.

What the government did to the men and women at Ruby Ridge and Waco was wrong. Plain and simple. Though you don't feel I display a sufficient level of outrage, I am not in any way defending what they have done nor sympathizing with it, contrary to you with respect to Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh.

The killing of innocent women and children begets the killing of innocent women and children.

Bullshit. Either it's wrong to kill innocent non-combatants or it's okay to kill innocent non-combatants. You don't get it both ways.

You might actually have a case if McVeigh and Rudolph had targeted ATF offices or FBI offices. If Tim McVeigh had taken a gun and shot up the FBI offices, if he had planted the bomb when no one was there, you might be able to argue that what he did was in reaction to his outrage over Ruby Ridge and Waco. However, what he did do was deliberately plant a bomb at a time when the Federal Building was most likely to be densely occupied. This points to a desire not for justice but to cold-blooded murder. Likewise with Eric Rudolph. He planted two bombs at the abortion clinic in Atlanta, the second of which was planted near the building and set to go off fully 90 minutes after the original bomb in a clear effort to take out media and investigators. Tell me how that second bomb struck a blow against abortion? It didn't damage the clinic building but it did maim a couple of people. What a brave patriot!

The government cannot kill innocents while destroying their intended target, and then be outraged when the opposition kills innocents while destroying its intended target.

Tell me again what the day care center at Oklahoma City had to do with the Waco and Ruby Ridge. Oh wait, you never answered that question. Were those children somehow destined to grow up to be FBI agents? What about the lesbian nightclub in Atlanta, were southern lesbians somehow connected to the death of Vickie Weaver? And the security guard in Birmingham, what was his role at Waco?

The day care center was to the killing of the federal agents stationed in Oklahoma City, as the innocent women and children at Waco and Randy Weaver's wife were to the killing of David Koresh and the other men at Waco and at Ruby Ridge: innocents who were killed collaterally.

Bullshit.

I do not condone the killing of innocents at Oklahoma City, but I have no sense of outrage or surprise over what happened there.

And you'll defend it as a justified act of war, which makes you almost as big a coward as Rudolph and McVeigh. "Oh great, the FBI killed Vickie Weaver! Now I have an excuse to blow up 168 people! HOORAY!"

In the context of what happened at Waco and Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City was to be expected.

Odd, that's the same line of reasoning used by the Williams brothers when they beat that gay couple to death.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), November 14, 2000.

Do you even remember WHY they were assaulting the Weavers?

Randy Weaver was selling guns without a dealer license and was believed to have connections with the Aryan Nations in Hayden Lake. The BATF was observing his cabin for months. Hi son stumbled on an agent in the woods while hunting. The agent, seeing his gun, may have panicked and shot first or the boy may have shot first. Either way, the boy ended up dead. This lead to the standoff which left Vickie Weaver and her baby dead and Randy Weaver wounded. It also lead to one dead agent and two or three others wounded.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), November 14, 2000.

Tarzan,

Maintain what you will. You can believe that I am a tranvestite with a pink boa for all that I care, but when I am debating with someone, I will not tolerate certain underhanded tactics. Calling me Dennis gets my goat, and I refuse to tolerate it. Your call.

I will gladly address your "earlier scathing post" as you call it, later today or possibly tomorrow, when I will also address your most recent post. As it is, I am behind on more important matters, and I shouldn't be spending time here right at this moment. Good day, sir.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 14, 2000.

Tarzan,

It appears Ruby Ridge would be worth going over again. I don't have the time this week, but will try and pull some stuff next.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 14, 2000.

Hmmm.... you imply, without getting too specific, that I have the details wrong on Ruby Ridge. Then you say that you don't have time to discuss it, but you'll get to it next week.

A good tactic, but a bit transparent.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), November 14, 2000.

The lesson of Ruby Ridge is "Don't sell firearms without a license. If you do, and you get caught, make your court date," If Weaver had gone to court, like a responsible person, the seige would never have happened.

-- The Lesson of Ruby Ridge (ruby@ridge.com), November 14, 2000.

Dumbass.

The lesson of Ruby Ridge is don't hold views that the govt does not approve of, and don't sell a sawed off shotgun to an undercover agent who has pestered you for MONTHS on end about it. Even if you do not make a lot of money, even if you are broke and are offered lots of money, do not sell an illegal firearm to an agent of the govt who is trying desperately to make something out of an under-cover case that has wasted thousands of govt hours and dollars and needs to collar someone, ANYONE to justify the time and expense. Don't do it, even if it is entrapment by an agent DESPERATE to salvage a case gone bad, don't do it.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 14, 2000.

Yes exactly. Don't break the law and you will have nothing to fear.

-- The Lesson of Ruby Ridge (ruby@ridge.com), November 14, 2000.

Same with Waco. They had over a f*ing month to surrender.

Too bad about the kids, but nits grow up to be lice.

-- A cleansing of the gene pool (I@MHO.), November 14, 2000.

Unk,

Good analysis. Just remember it is sometimes hard to identify who all our undercover narcs are.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), November 14, 2000.

Tarzan,

I will now address your "scathing post", as you put it.

Nice try to trivialize today's problems as being only in the eyes of racist gun nuts. Did Vicki Weaver have trouble with the government? How about the kids that they burned to death in Waco? Did they have troubles with the government? I guess those troubles were NOTHING compared to taxation without representation and not being able to trade overseas, huh?

Citation? How about any and every unconstitutional gun control law on the books today? California courts have upheld the banning of semi-auto rifles, which is an unconstitutional law. You have read the Second Amendment, haven't you? Do you understand the meaning of, "shall not be infringed"? Instant background check was passed by the federal government; again, this is unconstitutional gun control legislation, and part of the long standing pattern of unconstitutional federal gun control legislation that is pushing this country steadily closer to a revolt.

Your mixing of the Williams brothers, Eric Rudolph, and Timothy McVeigh allows you to paint them all together with one broad brush, and to try and claim that I support all of their actions, which I do not. Hence, the beating deaths of a gay couple have NO bearing on the Constitution, whether the Williams brothers claim to be patriots or not. Likewise with the bombing of a lesbian bar. After searching the FBI's site on the Olympic bombing, I was unable to prove your assertion about a letter claiming that the bombing was fighting the NWO, so I am dubious about both the claim that it was Rudolph, and if it was, how he would have claimed that it was a patriotic act.

Nice jab at religion with your home school dig. Does it irk you that home schooled children test light years ahead of their public edukashun counterparts? LOL. I know what Bunker Hill was. Bunker Hill was a battle in a war against tyranny, regardless of how YOU characterize Oklahoma City, many see IT the SAME way.

Since you emphatically state, "Hell yes"!, when asked about the distinction between taxation without representation and the mass murder of innocent American citizens, please put your weak attack of the messenger away long enough to explain why one of those acts is grievous enough to go to war over, but the other one isn't.

In Oklahoma City, Timothy McVeigh killed armed, previously combatant (at Waco), federal agents. Did you forget why the Murrah building was targeted? That was where many of the federal agents who participated in the raid at Waco were stationed. The children in the daycare were collateral to the destruction of the federal agents. I don't condone it; I am just explaining it.

Evidently you believe that it is okay for the federal government to murder innocent women and children, and you will only become outraged at the collateral deaths when American citizens fight back. You may claim that I am a coward and not a patriot for my outrage of the killings at Waco and Ruby Ridge. You may even claim that Colonel Prescott would have spit in my face. I think that YOU are a coward and a traitor for tacitly approving of the government's murder of innocent citizens. I believe that Colonel Prescott would have had you hung as a coward.


You said, "Actually, the civilians at Ruby Ridge and Waco were armed and were shooting".
I asked, "Randy Weaver's wife was armed and shooting"?
You answered, "I did not say that".
Vicki Weaver was a civilian at Ruby Ridge. Are you saying that she was armed and shooting or not?

Since Vicki Weaver was a civilian at Ruby Ridge, and you claimed that she was armed and shooting, and the FACT is that she was holding her infant daughter in her arms when the FBI sniper executed her, it is NOT a red herring, regardless of who brought it up.

Because you cannot see obvious similarities does not make me "pro- terrorism".

You do understand that it was a FEDERAL building that McVeigh blew up, right? F-E-D-E-R-A-L, as in federal agents with offices there. The day care center happened to be there also, it was not the intended target. Or don't you understand that?

Based on your answer of, "Bullshit", I guess that you don't understand that simple fact. I don't know how to make it any more clear.


From your post to Frank:

"Randy Weaver was selling guns without a dealer license and was believed to have connections with the Aryan Nations in Hayden Lake". I believe the true story was that he wouldn't turn informant for the ATF against the Aryan Nations. By the way, is it a crime to belong to an organization? Oh yeah, I almost forgot, just the politically incorrect organizations.

His son didn't stumble upon an agent while hunting. The dogs discovered two agents in the woods. One of the agents FIRED FIRST, killing a dog. The son and the family friend returned fire at the two men (who were on private property, who shot and killed a dog on private property, who didn't identify themselves as federal agents, and who were in plain clothes). One agent and Randy Weaver's son were killed in the initial gun fight. I don't remember if the family friend was wounded in the original gun fight or later, but he was wounded at some point in the ordeal.

During the ensuing siege, an FBI sniper executed Vicki Weaver while she stood holding her infant daughter in her arms, inside her OWN HOME, having been charged with NO CRIME, much less CONVICTED of one.

Frank wasn't being transparent, he was being polite. You were wrong on the details of what happened at Ruby Ridge. He knew that, but he evidently didn't have time to research the exact details until next week like he said.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 14, 2000.

The Lesson of Ruby Ridge,

Court date? You are a moron.

When the government comes onto your property and shoots your dog, your son, your friend, and your wife while she holds your infant daughter, all before they even CHARGE you with any crime, let alone CONVICT you of one, your only options are to shoot it out until the end and try to take some of them with you, or to keep your head down and pray that the media gets there quickly enough to expose what the government is doing before they kill every last one of you, including the baby.

It's siege, not "seige".

You are so smug with your little, "Don't break the law and you will have nothing to fear," quip. When the government BREAKS THE LAW we all have something to fear. Today it is gun owners, tomorrow it may be internet smart alecs like you, wise guy.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 14, 2000.

A cleansing of the gene pool,

You said, "Too bad about the kids, but nits grow up to be lice".

Please make that comment often while out in public. I am sure that it won't take you too long to find someone who will split your head open like a melon, you pathetic coward.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 14, 2000.

Jack Booted Thug,

Ah yes, "undercover narcs".

Remember old chap, no prisoner of war status granted to snipers or spies.

: )

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 14, 2000.

Normally I stay out of these rhetoric-laden, hip-wader-requiring, back-hoe-sized-shovel-isn't-enough-to-clear-a-path "discussions", but J, you went well beyond the bounds of ..... I can't even think of a word here. I simply cannot believe what you have written.

How is it that you classify the children killed in the OKC bombing as "collateral", and yet the children who died at Waco as being "murdered"? How is it at all possible that you make any distinction there? You're so concerned about the "rights of the unborn", yet you refer to the dead children at OKC as "collateral"?!?!?!?!

And you have the gall to call yourself a "Christian"?

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), November 15, 2000.

Patricia,

In an earlier post, I referred to the children at Waco AND the children at Oklahoma City as collateral losses. The term, "collateral", is in no way meant to imply that the lives of the children were worth less, only that they were not the intended victims. I am sorry that the term offends you, but it is certainly accurate in the description of the children that were killed in Oklahoma City. McVeigh was targeting federal agents in the building, not the children in the daycare center.

If the government agents were just trying to burn the men and women in Waco, and not the children, then the term applies in Waco as well.

I must say that your true leftist colors are showing though, Patricia. My use of the word "collateral" causes you to go into a state of apoplexy, but 'A cleansing of the gene pool' writes, "Too bad about the kids, but nits grow up to be lice", and you don't even bat an eye.

Where is your outrage over that statement?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 15, 2000.

Did Vicki Weaver have trouble with the government? How about the kids that they burned to death in Waco? Did they have troubles with the government? I guess those troubles were NOTHING compared to taxation without representation and not being able to trade overseas, huh?

Despite your disingenuous attempts to show otherwise, what happened at Waco and Ruby Ridge were horrible excpetions to the rule. I'm surprised that someone who considers themselves such a patriot is so ignorant about life under British rule. I don't suppose you've ever heard of the Boston Massacre? No, no, I guess not.

The plain fact of the matter is that we would simply be jailed for having this disucssion under British rule. If we were in a colonial Boston pub having this discussion, we would be summarily jailed and deprived of our property with little or no recourse. Instead of British rule, we have a rule where people are free to protest our governments actions, where those actions are examined, and where people such as yourself can even discuss overthrowing that government without fear of reprisal. That's the first amendement for you.

Citation? How about any and every unconstitutional gun control law on the books today?

I knew you couldn't come up with anything concrete.

Your mixing of the Williams brothers, Eric Rudolph, and Timothy McVeigh allows you to paint them all together with one broad brush, and to try and claim that I support all of their actions, which I do not.

My original post was regarding people who hope to foment civil unrest under the guise of patriotism. You said you'd rather romanticie yourself as a patriot than consider yourself a coward. Well, here are three people who agree with you.

Hence, the beating deaths of a gay couple have NO bearing on the Constitution, whether the Williams brothers claim to be patriots or not.

What, exactly, did the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal building have to do with the Constitution? How about the clinics in Atlanta and Birmingham.

Likewise with the bombing of a lesbian bar.

Translation: Only I am qualified to be a judge of patriotism.

After searching the FBI's site on the Olympic bombing, I was unable to prove your assertion about a letter claiming that the bombing was fighting the NWO, so I am dubious about both the claim that it was Rudolph, and if it was, how he would have claimed that it was a patriotic act.

Strange, I found it with no difficulty at all. Looks like you didn't try very hard.

Nice jab at religion with your home school dig.

Well, I try.

Does it irk you that home schooled children test light years ahead of their public edukashun counterparts? LOL.

Why don't you provide a citation? Oh, right.

I know what Bunker Hill was. Bunker Hill was a battle in a war against tyranny, regardless of how YOU characterize Oklahoma City, many see IT the SAME way.

A war against tyranny... sure. You have no idea what real tyrrany is, do you?

Since you emphatically state, "Hell yes"!, when asked about the distinction between taxation without representation and the mass murder of innocent American citizens, please put your weak attack of the messenger away long enough to explain why one of those acts is grievous enough to go to war over, but the other one isn't.

Under taxation without representation, we had no legal recourse. Both Waco and Ruby Ridge have been subject to massive investigation. Under British Rule, being critical of the government was illegal. Under our current rule of law, people such as yourself can say whatever you please without fear of censure. Is this enough of a difference to you, or shall I go on?

In Oklahoma City, Timothy McVeigh killed armed, previously combatant (at Waco), federal agents. Did you forget why the Murrah building was targeted? That was where many of the federal agents who participated in the raid at Waco were stationed. The children in the daycare were collateral to the destruction of the federal agents. I don't condone it; I am just explaining it.

Actually, according to McVeigh's cellmates, he chose the Murrah building because of the NUMBER of government offices and the design of the building, not the type of people who were in it. Here's a link to a New York Times story.

http://www.nando.net/newsroom/nt/bigstory.html

Moreover, his defense attorney claims that the "confession", which was published by a newspaper during the trial, was faked. Here's a link:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/03/okc.update/index.html

Can you come up with a citation to prove your point?

Evidently you believe that it is okay for the federal government to murder innocent women and children, and you will only become outraged at the collateral deaths when American citizens fight back.

Evidentally, you're running out of ammunition.

McVeigh was NOT "fighting back". If he had wanted to target BATF agents, he could have chosen a thousand different ways that didn't involve murdering so many innocents. McVeigh was only interested in killing. Once he was arrested, he didn't even try to take credit for his "fighting back"! Even the bombers in the middle east have the nerve to die in the act and their leaders have the nerve to claim credit for it.

You may claim that I am a coward and not a patriot for my outrage of the killings at Waco and Ruby Ridge.

I KNOW you're a coward because anyone who defends the killing of innocents as "collateral damage" in an attempt to foment civil unrest is, by definition, a coward.

You may even claim that Colonel Prescott would have spit in my face. I think that YOU are a coward and a traitor for tacitly approving of the government's murder of innocent citizens. I believe that Colonel Prescott would have had you hung as a coward.

Whine, whine, whine. You're so upset by having to defend the undefendable that you can't say anything more than I'm rubber and you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!

You said, "Actually, the civilians at Ruby Ridge and Waco were armed and were shooting". I asked, "Randy Weaver's wife was armed and shooting"? You answered, "I did not say that". Vicki Weaver was a civilian at Ruby Ridge. Are you saying that she was armed and shooting or not?

No, Vicki Weaver was not armed and shooting. She was shot as a horrible accident. Randy Weaver, his son, and their neighbor were shooting.

Since Vicki Weaver was a civilian at Ruby Ridge, and you claimed that she was armed and shooting, and the FACT is that she was holding her infant daughter in her arms when the FBI sniper executed her, it is NOT a red herring, regardless of who brought it up.

Once again, I have not claimed that Vicki Weaver was shooting. The kind of tactics you resort to when cornered are appallingly obvious Dennis.

Because you cannot see obvious similarities does not make me "pro- terrorism".

No, the fact that you're defending the murder of innocents as "collateral damage" is what makes you pro-terrorism.

You do understand that it was a FEDERAL building that McVeigh blew up, right? F-E-D-E-R-A-L, as in federal agents with offices there. The day care center happened to be there also, it was not the intended target. Or don't you understand that?

You do realize that the HUD workers had no connection to WACO, don't you? Or that the IRS had nothing to do with Ruby Ridge? Or are you saying that all F-E-D-E-R-A-L workers are somehow culpable for those two incidents?

Once again, you might have a case if McVeigh had only targeted those agents, or if he had chosen to destroy the building when no one was there, but he didn't. Instead, he chose the act of a coward in a deliberate attempt to murder as many people as possible. When he was caught, he didn't even take credit for his "brave, patriotic" act.

I believe the true story was that he wouldn't turn informant for the ATF against the Aryan Nations. By the way, is it a crime to belong to an organization? Oh yeah, I almost forgot, just the politically incorrect organizations.

It's not a crime to belong to an organization, however, it is a crime to sell guns to a terroristic organization without a dealer license.

His son didn't stumble upon an agent while hunting. The dogs discovered two agents in the woods. One of the agents FIRED FIRST, killing a dog. The son and the family friend returned fire at the two men (who were on private property, who shot and killed a dog on private property, who didn't identify themselves as federal agents, and who were in plain clothes).

And this justifies the murder of 168 people HOW?

Frank wasn't being transparent, he was being polite. You were wrong on the details of what happened at Ruby Ridge. He knew that, but he evidently didn't have time to research the exact details until next week like he said.

Let's see, according to you (and presumably Randy Weaver) I got the timing of the son's shooting wrong.

You're really getting desperate here, aren't you?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), November 15, 2000.

"Citation? How about any and every unconstitutional gun control law on the books today?"

What, exactly, do you think makes a law unconstitutional? Do you think it is your say-so? The say-so of people who are opposed to that law? No, Mr. Olson, what makes a law unconstitutional is the finding of a court that it is unconstitutional, and then either the upholding of that law in a higher court, or the refusal by a higher court to hear an appeal.

Period.

"California courts have upheld the banning of semi-auto rifles, which is an unconstitutional law."

Please tell me, as a practicing attorney, how this is unconstitutional. Please be prepared to back up your answer with legal citations.

"You have read the Second Amendment, haven't you? Do you understand the meaning of, "shall not be infringed"?

Tell me, Mr. Olson, why then are there infringements on our First Amendment rights? Please tell me why states are considering abrogating the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution as regards gay marriages. Are we to pick and choose which rights are sacrosanct and which are acceptably abridged? Or are you simply blowing smoke?

"Instant background check was passed by the federal government; again, this is unconstitutional gun control legislation,"

Again, please explain to me exactly how this is the case, citing case law, precedent and any applicable statutes.

"and part of the long standing pattern of unconstitutional federal gun control legislation"

Again with the "unconstitutional" label, and not once in your long, long tirades online have I seen you explain HOW this is unconstitutional. Come on. Tell me why you think this is the case.

"that is pushing this country steadily closer to a revolt."

Mmm hmm. "Justifiable" violence that kills women and children who just happen to be in the wrong place. Your "revolt" is terrorism, plain and simple.

"Hence, the beating deaths of a gay couple have NO bearing on the Constitution, whether the Williams brothers claim to be patriots or not."

Depriving someone of life without due process of law has no bearing on the Constitution? Surely you jest.

"After searching the FBI's site on the Olympic bombing, I was unable to prove your assertion about a letter claiming that the bombing was fighting the NWO, so I am dubious about both the claim that it was Rudolph, and if it was, how he would have claimed that it was a patriotic act."

I live in Atlanta. I have seen a copy of the letter. I shall see if I can find you some supporting evidence. However, I fear there may be no evidence you will support, seeing as how you are rationalizing terrorism and murder.

"In Oklahoma City, Timothy McVeigh killed armed, previously combatant (at Waco), federal agents."

In OKC, Mr. McVeigh also killed unarmed noncombatant women and children.

"Did you forget why the Murrah building was targeted? That was where many of the federal agents who participated in the raid at Waco were stationed."

So are you positing that the incidental killing of unarmed noncombatant children is somehow *defensible* based on that? I would *love* to meet you in court, Mr. Olson -- you would make my case FOR me.

"The children in the daycare were collateral to the destruction of the federal agents. I don't condone it; I am just explaining it."

By "explaining" it in this fashion, any judge in the land would recognize that you are, in fact, condoning it. Your argument is the legal equivalent of saying, "yes, I was drunk, and yes, I did hit and kill that child. But the presence of the child was incidental to the fact that I was driving while drunk, and therefore, if the child hadn't been there, I wouldn't have killed him. So I'm not guilty of murder or manslaughter."

This is called "tortured reasoning," Mr. Olson. You'll find that it works very poorly in courtrooms.

"Because you cannot see obvious similarities does not make me "pro- terrorism".

On the contrary. You obviously sympathize with at least two terrorists.

"You do understand that it was a FEDERAL building that McVeigh blew up, right? F-E-D-E-R-A-L, as in federal agents with offices there."

You do understand that there were unarmed noncombatant children in that building, don't you?

"The day care center happened to be there also, it was not the intended target. Or don't you understand that?"

Again, your "I-didn't-mean-it" defense of McVeigh is legally irrelevant. The scale of his terrorist act was so great that he cannot legally contend that the deaths of the OKC children was *accidental.* Therefore, since their deaths proceeded directly from his terrorist cat, he bears full legal responsibility for them.

"By the way, is it a crime to belong to an organization? Oh yeah, I almost forgot, just the politically incorrect organizations."

If you belong to, support or sympathize with an organization that espouses the violent overthrow of the US government or the incitement of urban "warfare," then don't be too surprised when that same government doesn't show you much sympathy.

-- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.org), November 15, 2000.

"Therefore, since their deaths proceeded directly from his terrorist cat, he bears full legal responsibility for them."

Um, that would be "terrorist ACT." To my knowledge, there are no violent, extremist felines residing in this country. My mistake.

Also, thanks to Tarzan for presenting the link about the Rudolph confession. Saves me the trouble of looking for it.

-- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.org), November 15, 2000.

I must say that your true leftist colors are showing though, Patricia. My use of the word "collateral" causes you to go into a state of apoplexy, but 'A cleansing of the gene pool' writes, "Too bad about the kids, but nits grow up to be lice", and you don't even bat an eye.

Where is your outrage over that statement?

J, my "outrage" is reserved for those who identify themselves; those who, when challenged, would actually come back with the same posting handle. A subtle distinction, perhaps. But I don't recall "the gene pool" ever claiming to be a Christian. (Then again, I don't know that for a fact, do I?) Frankly, the words of an anon (as I learned the hard way), don't mean all that much, especially when they are probably posted to irk one poster -- and in this case, it appears to have been directed at you.

I did initially misunderstand the meaning of the word "collateral" as you used it, but it doesn't detract from the cold-heartedness of your original (and now subsequent) statement.

My "outrage" stands as is.

And, not that it's any of your business, but my political "colors", while indeed somewhat slanted toward the "leftist", are in reality more to the middle. There are wackos on each fringe, and I've learned over the years that the only way to get anything done is by compromise. I am one of the only people who, at least publicly, has stated on this board that the only way to change anything (e.g., "the system") is to do it from within.

I doubt a "patriot" would understand the civility of that idea. You see, my idea of "change" and "compromise" does NOT include killing of ANYONE, let alone "collateral".

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), November 15, 2000.

You ain't gonna win this one J. You can't win it, no way no how.

There just isn't any credible way to justify the killing of innocent people and children, and your attempts to do so are both pathetic and revolting to real Americans, not to mention real Christians.

Ruby Ridge and Waco were terrible incidents, and I agree that there needs to be a better accounting for what the federal agents did there. But your attempts to equate the wholesale slaughter of innocents as a way of making an accounting are vile, and expose you as a coward, a fringe lunatic, and worst of all, a TRAITOR to the Constitution you pretend to adore. Scum.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 15, 2000.

Well said Unk! Couldn't agree more.

Nothing more yella than a "terrorist". McVeigh was as yella as they come. Pure scum.....

Just curious, who fired the first shot at Waco??

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), November 15, 2000.

In J's defense, I STILL don't think he is Dennis Olson.

Regarding the rest of this discussion, I think it's pretty strange that someone strongly against Harry Potter books would condone the Oklahoma bombing. I'll never understand J's thinking.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 15, 2000.

While I disagree with "The Lesson of Ruby Ridge", s/he is correct that if Randy Weaver had simply gone to his court date, his wife and son would likely be alive today. Weaver said so in a congressional hearing. Here's a link:

http://www.detnews.com/menu/stories/15603.htm

Here's an excerpt.

Weaver said he made two mistakes: He sold two sawed-off shotguns to an undercover informant for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and then he failed to show up for his trial. He said he sold the guns because his family needed the $450 he would profit from the transaction.

"If I had it to do over again, knowing what I know now, I would make different choices," Weaver said. "I would come down from the mountain for the court appearance."

From the same article:

Law enforcement gets its chance beginning Thursday to give its side of the story. It has said that its actions at the site were wrong and in some cases illegal, but that none of Weaver's family was killed intentionally. The government has paid the Weaver family $3.1 million to settle its claims and the Justice Department recently opened an investigation into allegations that high-level FBI officials engaged in a cover-up. Five FBI officials, including Deputy Director Larry Potts, have been suspended with pay.

The government admitted what they did was wrong, they participated in numerous investigations, and they paid $3.1 million to the Weavers as compensation (though nothing can ever fully compensate for the death of Randy Weaver's son and wife).

Now tell me again how Oklahoma City was a blow against federal tyrrany. Come to think of it, give me an example of a tyrrany that willingly admits its guilt, submits to several investigations, and pays money to the people accusing it of tyrrany for its own admitted misdeeds.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swigningthroughthejunglewithouta.net), November 15, 2000.

To all,

I will respond to all 8 of the most recent posts, and then I am done with this thread, as I seem to be turning even former allies on this forum against me. When you are in the minority of the conservative right, you can't afford to lose allies on THIS left- leaning forum. : )

First off, no matter how many or how well argued points are made against me, I will not engage posters who address me as "Dennis", "Olson", "Mr Olson", or some such variant. I have stated this before. Feel how you like about my position, but I would not expect a black poster to engage in debate with someone who calls him "nigger", nor would I expect a Jewish poster to engage in debate with someone who calls him "kike".

I am not trying to JUSTIFY the Oklahoma City bombing. I do not CONDONE the Oklahoma City bombing. I am merely engaging in a discussion to try and establish the point that when the government suspends the RULE OF LAW, there can be terrible repercussions for America and Americans. When the government wantonly kills innocent women and children, there are some among us who, like McVeigh, will stop at nothing to strike back at the government. My attempt to establish this point has branded me all kinds of names on this thread: scum, traitor, coward, yella, vile, fringe lunatic, terrorist, etc.

Two points have become painfully obvious: 1) Most on this forum cannot distinguish the messenger from the message. Did you all boo the student who argued from the Douglas side in the Lincoln-Douglas debates?

2)Most on this thread are passionate in their outrage over what Timothy McVeigh did at Oklahoma City, and rightfully so, but most are appallingly apathetic to the actions of the federal government at Waco and Ruby Ridge.

In parting, I do not condone the Oklahoma City bombing. I did not pull the truck up to the building. I did not detonate the bomb. It was a terrible thing for those innocents to die. You are all correct in your outrage over innocent American children dying in the blast at Oklahoma City.

Where is your outrage over the innocent mother who was executed as she held her infant daughter in her arms at Ruby Ridge?

Where is your outrage over the innocent mothers who held their children in their arms as the government burned them to death at Waco?

Do not abandon your outrage over what happened at Oklahoma City. Find some outrage over what happened at Ruby Ridge and at Waco.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 15, 2000.

"I will respond to all 8 of the most recent posts, and then I am done with this thread, as I seem to be turning even former allies on this forum against me."

Possibly because you *are* defending the killing of innocents, whether you recognize it or not.

"When you are in the minority of the conservative right, you can't afford to lose allies on THIS left- leaning forum. : )"

I didn't realize you thought of the conservative right as a minority. Perhaps that will give us some insight into your "fortress," "siege" and "revolt" mentality.

"First off, no matter how many or how well argued points are made against me, I will not engage posters who address me as "Dennis", "Olson", "Mr Olson", or some such variant."

Yes, yes, we have all heard this before. If Mr. Olson wanted to dispel this notion, he could do so in an instant. Perhaps if you weren't so vehement in arguing that you're not Dennis Olson, you might find that it magically stops mattering to us.

"I have stated this before. Feel how you like about my position, but I would not expect a black poster to engage in debate with someone who calls him "nigger", nor would I expect a Jewish poster to engage in debate with someone who calls him "kike".

Do you feel that being called "Dennis" is such an insult? That's odd, since your views appear to coincide with many of his. I would imagine that you'd find that a desirable comparison, not an insult of the degree that you suggest.

"I am not trying to JUSTIFY the Oklahoma City bombing."

Yes, you are. You are explaining why you believe it happened, and you are doing so in sympathetic terms.

"I do not CONDONE the Oklahoma City bombing."

I disagree. I think that you do.

"I am merely engaging in a discussion to try and establish the point that when the government suspends the RULE OF LAW, there can be terrible repercussions for America and Americans."

Do you not realize that law *descends* from the US government? Tarzan has done an excellent job in demonstrating that the US government did *not* suspend the rule of law, and in fact took steps to rectify the horrible acts committed in its name at Ruby Ridge. To be sure, those steps will not bring Vicki Weaver back, but Randy Weaver did get his day in court.

"When the government wantonly kills innocent women and children, there are some among us who, like McVeigh, will stop at nothing to strike back at the government."

And in doing so, will kill innocent bystanders who you (and likely McVeigh) refer to as "collateral damage." My God, man! These are HUMAN BEINGS, not WAREHOUSES!

"My attempt to establish this point has branded me all kinds of names on this thread: scum, traitor, coward, yella, vile, fringe lunatic, terrorist, etc."

Most of those names, if not all, appear to be earned and well- deserved.

"Two points have become painfully obvious: 1) Most on this forum cannot distinguish the messenger from the message."

I don't think that is obvious at all. If you're not Dennis Olson, then how exactly can we know who you are, "messenger," in order to distinguish you from your message. Further, your obvious *sympathy* for the message renders your complaint invalid.

"Did you all boo the student who argued from the Douglas side in the Lincoln-Douglas debates?"

No. I appreciate a good debate. But I cannot abide a debater who cannot present supporting citations and relies on breathless pronunciations of imminent armed revolt as his sole means of validation.

"2)Most on this thread are passionate in their outrage over what Timothy McVeigh did at Oklahoma City, and rightfully so,"

Rightfully so? I thought you said you *understood* why it happened, and that the dead children were simply "collateral damage?"

"but most are appallingly apathetic to the actions of the federal government at Waco and Ruby Ridge."

No, most of us are appalled that anyone would use one horrific wrong to defend another horrific wrong. Most of us can't believe that an allegedly educated adult American would be so myopic in his reasoning as to miss the outright HORROR that took place in OKC. For goodness' sakes, sir, McVeigh killed more Americans than the World Trade Center bombers! Does that mean *nothing* to you?

"In parting, I do not condone the Oklahoma City bombing."

I disagree. I think you do.

"I did not pull the truck up to the building. I did not detonate the bomb."

No one here has suggested that you did. However, this seems to be a very odd way to defend yourself.

"It was a terrible thing for those innocents to die. You are all correct in your outrage over innocent American children dying in the blast at Oklahoma City."

So why don't *you* share that same outrage?

"Where is your outrage over the innocent mother who was executed as she held her infant daughter in her arms at Ruby Ridge?"

We're too busy gaping in open-mouthed disbelief at a person who would *defend* the commission of the OKC atrocity as revenge for the Ruby Ridge atrocity.

"Where is your outrage over the innocent mothers who held their children in their arms as the government burned them to death at Waco?"

You aren't seeing it because you are too busy justifying the acts of domestic terrorism that came afterwards. Your defense of McVeigh and Rudolph has the same hollow ring as the defense of an inner-city gangbanger and drug dealer who turned to a life of crime because his mother didn't show him enough love in his youth.

"Do not abandon your outrage over what happened at Oklahoma City. Find some outrage over what happened at Ruby Ridge and at Waco."

We all have that outrage. However, those atrocities do not in any way excuse or explain Mr. McVeigh's actions. Or your defense of them.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 15, 2000.

-- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.org), November 15, 2000.

J: [even though you said you wouldn't respond to this thread again, I think you'll still review the responses.]

Find some outrage over what happened at Ruby Ridge and at Waco.

Both of these situations were unfortunate, but I can't conjure any outrage. IMO, Federal agents are people, with families themselves, and when their JOB is to go after someone who broke the law, they respond with the same emotions as anyone else when they see someone with whom they've worked for years, shared family dinners, etc. killed in the line of duty. I've heard people say, "Why should cop killers get a harsher punishment than people who kill an ordinary citizen?" My argument is that the police, and the other people paid to maintain law and order in our society put their lives on the line EVERY day in their jobs. I'm not in favor of mob rule. I'm not in favor of vigilantism. We pay folks to perform this job, and I think we have a duty to respect them and honor the fact that they're exposing themselves to harm 8 hours/day.

Now...this is NOT to say that ALL our police or federal agents are "playing with a full deck." We can't say that about ANY profession, nor any GROUP, for that matter. I'd even confess to looking around for a few cards on any given day myself. This is NOT an excuse for retaliation in the form of killing. There is NEVER an excuse for retaliation in the form of killing, IMO.

IMO, these two instances...Ruby Ridge and Waco have been used for YEARS to justify any/every anti-government movement possible. Poor decisions were made. Poor decisions will be made again, but I don't see how harboring resentment for a lifetime will bring back the lives of folks killed inadvertently or even killed intentionally by ONE or TWO people who lost it, nor do I see any rationality in these jihads.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 15, 2000.

Where is the outrage over phat phuking losers like Dennis Olsen who attempt to auction babies on the Internet?

-- I (h@ve.spoken), November 15, 2000.

Where is the outrage over phat phuking losers like Dennis Olsen who attempt to auction babies on the Internet?

Dennis OlsOn had absolutely NOTHING to do with the grandmother posting on TB2000 regarding the infant. He took the child into his home, along with the teenage mother, so now he's part and parcel of an AUCTION? I'll admit that I found it distasteful to present a child in the way the grandmother did. Was I OUTRAGED? No. At the same time that the grandmother presented the thread about the infant, a newborn was found here in Texas in a dumpster. If I were inclined to be outraged regarding lack of responsibility on the part of a parent, I most assuredly would have directed my outrage towards the situation that hit closer to my home.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 16, 2000.

At the risk of being accused of beating a dead horse, I am making a few responses on this thread.

I will respond to all 8 of the most recent posts, and then I am done with this thread, as I seem to be turning even former allies on this forum against me.

Referring to dead Americans as "collateral damage" and acts of terroism as "suspending the rule of law" is the sort of thing that is likely to make people upset.

When you are in the minority of the conservative right, you can't afford to lose allies on THIS left- leaning forum. : )

I don't know that this forum is left-leaning. I always thought it was rather conservative myself. It is nice to see mostly everyone, whether conservative, centrist, or liberal, condemning terrorism and militia-speak.

I am not trying to JUSTIFY the Oklahoma City bombing. I do not CONDONE the Oklahoma City bombing. I am merely engaging in a discussion to try and establish the point that when the government suspends the RULE OF LAW, there can be terrible repercussions for America and Americans.

You said, "When the federal government no longer obeys the rule of law, what recourse is left? When the judges in this country circumvent the Constitution with their rulings, what recourse is left? The actions of the federal government and the courts have been pushing this country steadily closer to a revolt for years with their unconstitutional laws and rulings." Later, you said, "When you burn a church full of women and children to the ground, or when you execute a woman holding her baby in her arms, then you open up a whole Pandora's box of warfare where other innocents are bound to be killed.".

That sounds awfully close to defending McVeigh and Rudolph.

When the government wantonly kills innocent women and children, there are some among us who, like McVeigh, will stop at nothing to strike back at the government. My attempt to establish this point has branded me all kinds of names on this thread: scum, traitor, coward, yella, vile, fringe lunatic, terrorist, etc.

In both Ruby Ridge and Waco, the government did NOT watonly kill women and children. Both of those situations were siege situations where every effort was given to allow and encourage surrender. The killings were a horrible accident, not the purpose of the matter. Contrast this with the Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh bombings. What chance did McVeigh give for surrender? What chance did Eric Rudolph give? Those acts were specifically designed for killing. Moreover, while the government has acknowledged its wrong doing, submitted to several examinations, and attempted to make reparations to the victims, Timothy McVeigh continues to deny his involvement and Eric Rudolph continues to hide out from the authorities.

And of course, let's not forget that you yourself tossed around words like coward and traitor.

Two points have become painfully obvious: 1) Most on this forum cannot distinguish the messenger from the message. Did you all boo the student who argued from the Douglas side in the Lincoln-Douglas debates?

No. You can't shake the devil's hand and say you were only kidding. If YOU were playing devil's advocate, then YOU had the responsibility to say so. If those opinions weren't really yours then YOU had the responsibility to present them as opinions that weren't yours. You can't blame us when we get angry at the things you say. YOU said them, YOU presented them as your ideas, as WE took them as such. This is not OUR fault.

2)Most on this thread are passionate in their outrage over what Timothy McVeigh did at Oklahoma City, and rightfully so, but most are appallingly apathetic to the actions of the federal government at Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Wait a minute: first you say that, despite all appearances to the contrary, you actually condemn the abortion McVeigh and Rudolph bombings. Now you say, despite our words to the contrary, that those of us who disagree with you aren't sufficiently outraged about Waco and Ruby Ridge? This is pure hypocrisy.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), November 16, 2000.

If Mr. Olson wanted to dispel this notion, he could do so in an instant.

How does the fact that he hasn't done so lead you to the conclusion that Y2J is Dennis Olson?

Perhaps if you weren't so vehement in arguing that you're not Dennis Olson, you might find that it magically stops mattering to us.

LOL. He never brings it up. Someone else always does. If it "magically stopped mattering" then why are other people continuing to call him "Dennis?"

Do you feel that being called "Dennis" is such an insult? That's odd, since your views appear to coincide with many of his.

Only in the fact that both views are on the conservative side. There are many people who share similar views. However, the way in which they share their views can differ greatly. In addition, one important view they do not seem to share is their opinion of this forum. Y2J is a regular participant whereas Dennis has continually called this forum "The New Debunkies House O' Trolls."

I would imagine that you'd find that a desirable comparison, not an insult of the degree that you suggest.

Suprise!

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 16, 2000.

Regarding why J left this thread, I have a very difficult time believing it has anything to do with him being called Dennis. For one thing, J has participated in several threads where he has been called Dennis. He has either ignored it or dismissed it. Heck, J and I have even argued over why I think he's really Dennis, and though he took offense, he never abandoned the thread.

I think J just got in over his head on this one. I don't think he necessarily wanted to be in the position of defending the undefensible acts of Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph, at least not in the face of public opinion. J, like myself, has difficulty admitting when he's wrong, and he does so only after he has exhausted every other avenue. This time, though, his choices were either to publicly repudiate his views (which may have proved too difficult) or find an escape hatch. He chose to leave, blaming those of us who think he's Dennis and essentially saying that whatever misunderstanding and faulty arguments occured were on the part of those who were disagreeing with him. Obviously we don't understand good debate and have no sympathy for the Weavers of the Koreshites.

I must say that this thread disturbed me more than any other except the adoption thread on the old board. I've been reading up on the militia movement lately because an acquaintance is considering joining one. Phrases like "collateral damage" and "suspend the rule of law" are classic militia 101. Moreover, the contention that Timothy McVeigh chose the federal building because of BATF agents that may have worked there is also a classic militia argument; McVeigh himself has never even admitted to bombing the federal building much less offered any reasoning as to why he chose it (except perhaps to his cell mates- check out the link I supplied earlier), but there have been many in the militia who have been quick to assign exactly this meaning.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), November 16, 2000.

>>>If Mr. Olson wanted to dispel this notion, he could do so in an instant. "How does the fact that he hasn't done so lead you to the conclusion that Y2J is Dennis Olson?"

I didn't say that it did. There is abundant evidence that J *is* Dennis Olson, yet even after Dennis/J stomped off one particular abortion thread, people *pointed out to him* that a troll had forged Dennis' e-mail address and therefore, Dennis was getting all the messages from the thread, even the ones where "J" *claimed he wasn't Olson.*

If someone forging Olson's address didn't bring him fuming back here, or some angry e-mail that the troll would have posted, then perhaps Dennis is already *here.*

The fact that Olson hasn't dispelled this rumor does not lead me to this conclusion. Rather, it *solidifies* the previously-made conclusion.

>>>Perhaps if you weren't so vehement in arguing that you're not Dennis Olson, you might find that it magically stops mattering to us.

"LOL. He never brings it up. Someone else always does."

Irrelevant. Read what I wrote. If he *stopped arguing about it,* then it might stop being important. Nowhere has anyone said that "J" brings it up. But "J" gets mighty upset when *others* bring it up. Maybe if he stopped doing that, he might find things changing.

"If it "magically stopped mattering" then why are other people continuing to call him "Dennis?"

Because many people here believe that "J" and Dennis Olson are one and the same. And it *hasn't* stopped mattering, mostly because "J" is still shrieking his innocence.

>>>Do you feel that being called "Dennis" is such an insult? That's odd, since your views appear to coincide with many of his.

"Only in the fact that both views are on the conservative side. There are many people who share similar views."

That's not what "J" said. He feels that conservatism is squarely in the minority in this country. And both "J" and Dennis have stated some rather extreme views on government and militias. There are not so many people who share views like that. In any event, there is other, better evidence that "J" = Dennis Olson.

"However, the way in which they share their views can differ greatly. In addition, one important view they do not seem to share is their opinion of this forum."

Both points are irrelevant. Are you claiming that Dennis could not possibly be here under an assumed persona? Surely you jest.

"Y2J is a regular participant whereas Dennis has continually called this forum "The New Debunkies House O' Trolls."

Irrelevant, for the reason cited above.

>>>I would imagine that you'd find that a desirable comparison, not an insult of the degree that you suggest.

"Suprise!"

A red herring. The fact that you go to the trouble to point it out, given the many views which they apparently *share,* is incongruous indeed. If they are so alike, then why should one object to being compared with the other?

-- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.org), November 16, 2000.

Good point, Sal. People have often "accused" me of being FutureShock an vice versa because our views are similar. Neither of us get as upset as J does at the mention of it, however.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), November 16, 2000.

If someone forging Olson's address didn't bring him fuming back here, or some angry e-mail that the troll would have posted, then perhaps Dennis is already *here.*

Perhaps he is. Indeed, Dennis has quoted posts from here numerous times on EZ-Board.

The fact that Olson hasn't dispelled this rumor does not lead me to this conclusion. Rather, it *solidifies* the previously-made conclusion.

All it solidifies is that Dennis monitors this forum, not that he is Y2J.

If he *stopped arguing about it,* then it might stop being important.

Why would that be? This appears to be the case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't." If he argues the point, then he's making a big deal out of it so it must be true. But if he doesn't argue the point, then couldn't his silence be interpreted that he agrees with the conclusion that he is Dennis?

Nowhere has anyone said that "J" brings it up. But "J" gets mighty upset when *others* bring it up. Maybe if he stopped doing that, he might find things changing.

I don't see why that would be.

"If it "magically stopped mattering" then why are other people continuing to call him "Dennis?"

Because many people here believe that "J" and Dennis Olson are one and the same. And it *hasn't* stopped mattering, mostly because "J" is still shrieking his innocence.

But he is still shrieking his innocence because people continue to call him Dennis! This is a circular argument. If people stopped calling him Dennis, he would stop shrieking and, in turn, it would "stop mattering." Try not calling him Dennis and see for yourself.

>>>Do you feel that being called "Dennis" is such an insult? That's odd, since your views appear to coincide with many of his.

"Only in the fact that both views are on the conservative side. There are many people who share similar views."

That's not what "J" said. He feels that conservatism is squarely in the minority in this country. And both "J" and Dennis have stated some rather extreme views on government and militias. There are not so many people who share views like that.

But there are enough, especially on EZ-Board, that J's position is hardly unique.

In any event, there is other, better evidence that "J" = Dennis Olson.

Yes, I'm aware of the "taking in of two people" that coincides with the baby adoption situation. This appears to be the only compelling evidence, but I feel it is outweighed by more practical evidence to the contrary.

"However, the way in which they share their views can differ greatly. In addition, one important view they do not seem to share is their opinion of this forum."

Both points are irrelevant.

How are they irrelevant?

Are you claiming that Dennis could not possibly be here under an assumed persona?

Not in the least. In fact, I believe there is more evidence to suggest that Dennis posts here as "Yeah Right" than as Y2J.

"Y2J is a regular participant whereas Dennis has continually called this forum "The New Debunkies House O' Trolls."

Irrelevant, for the reason cited above.

What reason was that?

>>>I would imagine that you'd find that a desirable comparison, not an insult of the degree that you suggest.

"Suprise!"

A red herring. The fact that you go to the trouble to point it out, given the many views which they apparently *share,* is incongruous indeed. If they are so alike, then why should one object to being compared with the other?

Because they are not alike in a few important ways which I have mentioned above, and which you called "irrelevant." This may be why you incorrectly imagined that he would find the comparison desirable, whereas I realized that he may not.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 16, 2000.

Good point, Sal. People have often "accused" me of being FutureShock an vice versa because our views are similar. Neither of us get as upset as J does at the mention of it, however.

I can't tell if you're kidding here or not, but you do realize that there's a big difference between being compared to FutureShock and being compared to Dennis Olson, don't you?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 16, 2000.

I think that some people really believe that J is Dennis, but others are just trying to get a rise out of him. Sort of like poking your younger sibling in the backseat of the car on a long road trip.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), November 16, 2000.

I agree. However, calling him Dennis doesn't really help your other arguments much.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 16, 2000.

Same with Waco. They had over a f*ing month to surrender. Too bad about the kids, but nits grow up to be lice.

-- A cleansing of the gene pool (I@MHO.), November 14, 2000.

= satanta from EZ. And you thought hawk was sick. Unless they are the same person...hmmm

proof

-- he's sick (he@really.is), November 16, 2000.